what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

[trdsf]

Ok then, The New Testament. There is evidence outside the Bible as well.

Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Josephus
Lucian
Babylonian Talmud

None of which are unequivocal.

Irrelevant anyway.  Even if there was a historical Jesus, that doesn't mean he was divine.  There's far more historical evidence for the existence of Siddhartha Gautama -- by your 'logic' that means that Buddhism is unequivocally true.  Jim Jones definitely existed -- by your 'logic', the People's Temple was the true religion.  Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí (aka Bahá'u'lláh) definitely existed, so why aren't you Bahá'í?

If Jeshua bar-Joseph was a real person, I wish more of the people who claim to follow him actually did, rather than following that hysterical sexist Paul.

[Baruch]

When they have looked at all the evidence and decide there is sufficient evidence for God and then see that there is more then enough evidence for Jesus and then decide to put their faith in him. Not blind faith. Active trust. Knowing that he is the way and the truth and the life.

When you say God reveals himself what should that look like for you?

How could a timeless, spaceless,  and immaterial God reveal himself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am the way, the truth and the life ... and so are you.  Everybody is Jesus, and nobody is.  All humans are characters in a play, where the actors are ad libing.  Ever hear of Shakespeare?  The Gospels are scripts of Hellenistic plays, staged by guys like Paul.  He showed them signs, in the synagogues ... just before they kicked him out.  Some theater critics are too harsh!  Paul was punished by lashing and being trod upon ... because that is what it takes to get un-excommunicated.  Spinoza never endured that, he accepted his excommunication.  I interact with G-d, in the ordinary way, every day and night, by being incarnate, and dealing with the other incarnates such as yourself.

On your other tiffs ... materialists by definition, don't accept anything that doesn't involve space, time and matter/energy.  They are all naturalists aka "phusoi" or physicists ... and we get the word physician from that root also, because of Hippocrates and his scientific medicine (which involves nature, not gods).  You had to visit the sanctuary of Aesclepius if you wanted faith healing.

So axiomaticly, not by deduction, they have to reject your question as nonsense.  Like if you were doing math, and claimed you had discovered a square circle.

[Baruch]

If that's true then everything you just said is false.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes ... but what is false is true, and what is true is false.  Logic is in vain, reality isn't binary.  This is why no computer is alive, a computer is a subset of things that are not alive.  But there are living beings, not things ... and we are not binary, even if our futile attempt to be Vulcan is.

[trdsf]

If that's true then everything you just said is false.

And therefore, also everything you've said.  Be careful which generalizations you want to make, they can come back and bite you on the ass.

[Baruch]

And therefore, also everything you've said.  Be careful which generalizations you want to make, they can come back and bite you on the ass.

But I am masochistic ... care to take a bite ;-)

[trdsf]

But I am masochistic ... care to take a bite ;-)

The genuinely sadistic response to that is 'No'.  :D

[Blackleaf]

Ok then, The New Testament. There is evidence outside the Bible as well.

Jesus' death is estimated to have happened around AD 30 â€" 36. So let's see how many of these people were alive before then.

Tacitus (AD 56 â€" 120)
Pliny the Younger (AD 61 â€" 113)
Josephus (AD 37 â€" 100)
Lucian (AD 125 â€" 473)

Oh, look at that. None of them were alive to see Jesus when he was supposedly alive. Funny how that works. Not a single person remembers seeing Jesus when he was around.

Babylonian Talmud

Explanation, please.

[Kaleb5000]

None of which are unequivocal.

Irrelevant anyway.  Even if there was a historical Jesus, that doesn't mean he was divine.  There's far more historical evidence for the existence of Siddhartha Gautama -- by your 'logic' that means that Buddhism is unequivocally true.  Jim Jones definitely existed -- by your 'logic', the People's Temple was the true religion.  Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí (aka Bahá'u'lláh) definitely existed, so why aren't you Bahá'í?

If Jeshua bar-Joseph was a real person, I wish more of the people who claim to follow him actually did, rather than following that hysterical sexist Paul.

He asked for one price of evidence so I gave him many. Of course I had to include some outside the Bible since atheist instantly reject the New Testament even though it has been historically accurate. But since Jesus is in it the atheist must reject it. The Atheist has already presupposed there is no God in their worldview.


All I need is the New Testament forget the other non biblical writers. There is plenty of reason to believe the New Testament is true. But I am certain no amount of evidence would say 90% of Atheist because they don't want there to be a God. They want to be their own God. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

I am the way, the truth and the life ... and so are you.  Everybody is Jesus, and nobody is.  All humans are characters in a play, where the actors are ad libing.  Ever hear of Shakespeare?  The Gospels are scripts of Hellenistic plays, staged by guys like Paul.  He showed them signs, in the synagogues ... just before they kicked him out.  Some theater critics are too harsh!  Paul was punished by lashing and being trod upon ... because that is what it takes to get un-excommunicated.  Spinoza never endured that, he accepted his excommunication.  I interact with G-d, in the ordinary way, every day and night, by being incarnate, and dealing with the other incarnates such as yourself.

On your other tiffs ... materialists by definition, don't accept anything that doesn't involve space, time and matter/energy.  They are all naturalists aka "phusoi" or physicists ... and we get the word physician from that root also, because of Hippocrates and his scientific medicine (which involves nature, not gods).  You had to visit the sanctuary of Aesclepius if you wanted faith healing.

So axiomaticly, not by deduction, they have to reject your question as nonsense.  Like if you were doing math, and claimed you had discovered a square circle.

Oh boy there is so much that could be said about your statement. If I can remember to come back here and reply I will. Today is my sons birthday so after this morning I won't be around much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

Yes ... but what is false is true, and what is true is false.  Logic is in vain, reality isn't binary.  This is why no computer is alive, a computer is a subset of things that are not alive.  But there are living beings, not things ... and we are not binary, even if our futile attempt to be Vulcan is.

You will never further your cause with crazy talk like that. I am certain most atheist would not claim you as one of their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

Jesus' death is estimated to have happened around AD 30 â€" 36. So let's see how many of these people were alive before then.

Oh, look at that. None of them were alive to see Jesus when he was supposedly alive. Funny how that works. Not a single person remembers seeing Jesus when he was around.

Explanation, please.

bethinking.org says



"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament."


So by your logic many historical writings would be false such as these.

Click on picture





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

And therefore, also everything you've said.  Be careful which generalizations you want to make, they can come back and bite you on the ass.

Actually I have not made any self defeating statements.

  He said all writings are false past present and future.

  He wrote something in the present which would make it false. His statement defeats itself and therefore is not valid. Or at least tells me he is to off in space to have a serious conversation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Actually I have not made any self defeating statements.

  He said all writings are false past present and future.

  He wrote something in the present which would make it false. His statement defeats itself and therefore is not valid. Or at least tells me he is to off in space to have a serious conversation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are speaking to god ... now you must obey me or go to Hell ... I want you to take two cloves of garlic, and shove each one up each of your nostrils ... while watching Monty Python skit about the Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch ...

There was a movie in the early 50s, called This Is God Speaking ... God apparently doesn't need a starship, but does need radio ... there weren't many TVs yet, but that is the Devil's own ... bwahaha

[Baruch]

You will never further your cause with crazy talk like that. I am certain most atheist would not claim you as one of their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is because not only are most theists liars, so are most atheists ... monkey men are like that.  I reject rationalism, and piss in Descartes' piniot noire!  Did you know that computer bus architecture, which is part of the system I am communicating on, uses three state logic, not two state logic ... the Aristotelian horrors will they ever cease?  Some subway control architectures use fuzzy logic, that means a continuum of states, not binary.

[Baruch]

Actually I have not made any self defeating statements.

  He said all writings are false past present and future.

  He wrote something in the present which would make it false. His statement defeats itself and therefore is not valid. Or at least tells me he is to off in space to have a serious conversation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are using hearsay and propaganda from decades to centuries later than Paul.  You are using old toilet paper.  Paul was almost contemporary, and he never mentions the living Jesus, only the dead one.  He founded Christianity, not Jesus.  And Constantine took what had developed out of that, and made a state religion out of it ... for his political benefit.  The Babylonian Talmud, if you had bothered to check, was written down around 600 CE ... even later than the surviving copies of Paul's letters.  No Jew has ever, nor will ever, admit that Jesus was real ... because he wasn't.  Even Muhammad was tripped up, though his revelation reveals a very different Jesus than the Pauline one ... Muhammad knew he had to compete with Jewish and Christian Arabs.